D&D 5E Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[Oofta]

Maybe, maybe not. No player I have ever played with knew every single rule and feature of the game and normally these come out in play. It is logical to believe that at some point a player playing a Druid is going to want to put on metal armor.

At which point the DM has a choice. Allow it because they don't care or point out that druids will not wear metal armor and there is no house rule to allow it.

It's not like the world would implode if the DM points out a rule a player was unaware of.

 

[Oofta]

And you think that's reasonable? D&D is first and foremost a game of exceptions and rulings. A DM who is a slave to the rules is not a DM I'd ever want to play a game with.

I modify some rules, stretch others. Some I enforce. Have an issue with a rule let me know and we'll discuss it. But sometimes the answer will be "no".

 

[Charlaquin]

Whether a rule violates player agency has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is rule. It may have something to do with whether it is a good rule.

That’s why I said “if you accept that it’s a rule.” I can see the interpretation that it is a rule. If it is a rule, it’s a rule that violates player agency. Like I said, that’s fine if you’re ok with that; it doesn’t necessarily make it not a rule. I don’t believe that the design intent was to make a rule that violates player agency, and I think Sage Advice backs me up on that. YMMV.

Then again, even the claim that it violates agency is rather questionable, at least that it uniquely does so. The game is literally built on limits on possible actions. Furthermore, the player chose this. They willingly chose to play a druid, so doing so they willingly chose to not wear metal armour, just like when player chooses to play a wizard, they willingly to choose to play a person who studies books.

But the Wizard player can choose not to study books in actual play. Even the Paladin player can choose to violate their oath, and there will be consequences for doing so (namely, having their subclass changed to Oathbreaker). The druid restriction on wearing metal armor is unique in that it neither restricts what the character can do (will not =/= can not), nor does it list any consequence for doing the thing. The DM’s only options if they wish to enforce the restriction as a rule and a druid player declares they don metal armor are to house rule (either by saying they can’t or by making up a consequence the rule itself doesn’t provide), or to limit the player’s agency by saying this is something their character wouldn’t do.

The player has the option to not play a druid. Since that's out there in the open, that rule is no more a violation of agency than anything else.

Of course the player has the option not to play a druid. But if they do play a druid and then attempt to don metal armor, the DM must either tell them they can’t (which isn’t what the “rule,” such as it is, actually says), they suffer a consequence (which is not provided by the rule and goes against the Sage Advice on the matter), or their character won’t (which violates their agency).

 

[Oofta]

Just to be clear: I've DMed and played with multiple druid PCs. This has never, ever been an issue or even raised as one.

I think druids not wearing metal armor is something cool that sets them apart from a nature cleric subclass. It's never come up but I would have no problem with scale mail made out of alternative materials (there's plenty of historical precedence) or even a breastplate made of a carapace of a giant spider.

Don't like the rule? Don't use it.

 

[abirdcall]

Of course the player has the option not to play a druid. But if they do play a druid and then attempt to don metal armor, the DM must either tell them they can’t (which isn’t what the “rule,” such as it is, actually says), they suffer a consequence (which is not provided by the rule and goes against the Sage Advice on the matter), or their character won’t (which violates their agency).

Again, that's not what violating agency means.

The player chose to have a character who would not wear metal armour. The player breaking the social contract and the table having an issue with that is not 'violating agency'.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Willing? Huh, my druid is perfectly willing to wear breastplate and not die.

No he's not, not under the standard rules. Druids will not wear metal armour, so if your character is a druid, they will not wear metal armour. That' the rules.

So, why is it that I have to go on a quest to earn the right to wear it?

You don't have to. You can wear hide.

And so might a metal one. That isn't the point. Why do I have to go on a quest to get non-magical breastplate? No one else to. And the designers clearly stated it isn't a balance issue for me to have non-magical breastplate, so why the hoops?

Because its part of the class that they don't wear metal armour.

But you said there was no non-metal breastplates in the PHB.

There aren't. GM can make such up, but they're not required to do so. But if the GM lets wizards to buy spell scrolls, then it means that magic items are in the game and buyable, so druid should also be able to buy a low-level magic armour with unusual material quality.

And sure, better armor is never required. You can have everyone play with no armor if you really wanted too... but it is kind of assumed, at some point, that you are going to improve your gear. And yet, while the cleric of nature who worships Sylvanus can buy that metal breastplate in window, Sylvanus declared that druids must never wear metal armor, so the Druid who worships him can't. Because reasons that are reasons.

Yes. Because druids are not clerics. But if that bothers you, you can certainly play that nature cleric instead, and buy that metal armour. See, almost like these classes were meaningfully different from each other!

Nothing on page 66 refers to going on quest to see more animals. I thought you refering to the rules in Xanathars on pg 24. Which are optional.

It says you can turn into animals you've seen. You presumably need to go into places where these animals live in order to see them.

But it isn't a weakness. Druids can wear the same exact armors as clerics. You are just having them jump through hoops for "theme" because metal taken from the earth is somehow unnatural, but only when shaped into armor and shields.

Sounds like a weakness to me.

Heck, there is literally, literally no reason a druid should not be able to use a metal shield. They provide the exact same AC bonus, they aren't being "worn" and yet Druids can't use metal shields because that would be naughty and they are supposed to have a "weakness" in that?

That's not really a weakness, as nonmetal shields are just as good. The armour limitation however is.

And I would have no patience for being forced to jump through hoops for mundane gear that just has a different coat of paint on it.

Then don't play a druid. Or any character that requires expensive gear for that matter.

And if it is so interesting and so fun to do, why not require everyone to do it?

We generally do. That gold to the paladin's full plate must come from somewhere. Whether you adventure and find gold and buy gear with that, or whether you adventure and gather animal bits and make armour out of those or whether you adventure and find magical items it is basically the same thing. You adventure in order to gain better gear. This is literally the classic premise of large part of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

No he's not, not under the standard rules. Druids will not wear metal armour, so if your character is a druid, they will not wear metal armour. That' the rules.

This is false. The standard rules do no prevent the wearing of metal armor. A druid faces with saving all of nature if he wear metal armor and losing it if he doesn't isn't even going to hesitate. He's going to put it on and nothing in the rules can stop him.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, that's not what violating agency means.

The player chose to have a character who would not wear metal armour. The player breaking the social contract and the table having an issue with that is not 'violating agency'.

You’re talking about making the metal armor restriction a part of the social contract. That’s fine, that’s your group’s decision to make, but it isn’t part of the rules of the game. If we interpret the restriction as a rule of the game rather than a part of the social contract, then it’s a rule of the game that takes what a character “would do” out of the hands of the player, which is indeed a violation of player agency.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Don't like the rule? Don't use it.

Issue is about problem with 'rule' lots of DMs pointlessly uphold.

Solution is to assert that the DM is an all-powerful authority over the game.

Problem Exists Between Chair and DM Screen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is false. The standard rules do no prevent the wearing of metal armor. A druid faces with saving all of nature if he wear metal armor and losing it if he doesn't isn't even going to hesitate. He's going to put it on and nothing in the rules can stop him.

You're still blatantly wrong. The rule: "Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal."